Wikipedia:Peer review/Mallard/archive1

Mallard

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because this article has now passed GA, and improved keeping in mind for a possible FA-hood. It is of level-4 importance, and would be great if could be peer reviewed. Thank you very much in advance. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this. I'm not an expert on birds by any means, so most of my comments will be about prose and organising the article. N Oneemuss (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead seems very short. Ideally, it should summarise the whole of the article; things from the Behaviour (e.g. Breeding) and Relationship with humans sections could be added for a start. Looking at some bird FAs (e.g. Common raven), it seems the lead should probably be three or four paragraphs long.

Expanded it. Referring to White stork, and a few other birds, I did not include the relationship with humans section in the lead, though (white stork contains a cultural section not included in the lead). Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a LOT of overlinking. Plenty of major geographical features are linked: Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are three examples from the first paragraph, while later in the article examples include Europe. United Kingdom, China, Japan and several cities (e.g. Madrid). Some non-geographical terms are also unnecessarily linked, such as behaviour, park and farm.

Removed all the countries linked, although kept the other geographical regions such as cities, continents, and other regions. This is because I have seen it in most bird articles (even in common raven). Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a duplicate link of Mitochondrial DNA in the first section.

Yeah, removed.

Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prose generally seems OK (though there are mistakes; "in" is missing after "described" in the first sentence of the first section). I would note that there are a lot of sentences in the passive voice, though I appreciate that it is sometimes appropriate. One example is the very first sentence of the first section.

I think it looks good now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The In art section has repetitive sentences; three start with "mallards" and two with "the mallard".

Resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the In children's stories section needs a lot of work. The prose is quite weak ("it is the story of"), and I'm not sure whether the last story mentioned is notable enough to deserve inclusion.

Resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're aiming for featured status, I would personally recommend a copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors as preparation, but I am not an experienced reviewer, so that may be unnecessary. Overall the article seems very good, and I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to get it promoted fairly soon. I hope this review has been helpful. I might add some more comments later. N Oneemuss (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@N Oneemuss: Thank you very much for picking it up for a review.

It has now gotten a copy-editing from the GOCE, and hopefully all the issues so far have been resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments

This article looks much improved and is, in my view, almost ready for FAC. I have noticed some things though. Sorry for the delay! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 10:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would link Falkland Islands in the lead because they aren't a country and therefore not very well known.

Linked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I still think there's some overlinking: duck can probably stay owing to the subject of the article, but beetles, flies,worms, snakes, fish and logo all seem unnecessary. United States is also linked in Invasivity.

True that. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for MOS:SEAOFBLUE, especially in the Taxonomy and evolution section. I know that sometimes it's hard to get rid of, but "Mitochondrial DNA D-loop sequence" (three links in a row!) certainly needs to be changed.

Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There should probably be a hyphen after "inter" because it isn't an individual word.

I assume you meant for "inter and intraspecific competition." If so, I think it looks good now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"engaging in active hunting behavior of" – why not just "hunting"?

Yeah.

Awesome one! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Species names shouldn't normally start with capital letters (e.g. "Grey wagtail"). However, "muscovy duck" in the Relationship with humans section should start with a capital letter (Muscovy is, or at least was, a place).

Oops. Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Northern Hemisphere" should have both words starting with capital letters.

Oops! Great one.

Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't footnotes go after punctuation (there are quite a few before brackets in the Breeding section)?

Footnotes? I don't see any. If you mean citations, yeah there were a few that need to be placed after the punctuation. Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid slashes in running text "feeding/loafing".

Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Predators and threats, I think it should say "Corvus spp." because sp. is the singular form and spp. is the plural (assuming you mean more than one species).

Yeah. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise whether you want to use en dashes or em dashes; if you want to use en dashes, there are some em dashes in the Status and conservation section.

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"even though the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds applies to the mallard as well as other ducks" – I think you need to expand on this.

I think it looks explained now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make it clear that the New Zealand grey duck is the Pacific black duck.

Since the New Zealand grey duck is the subspecies of the Pacific black duck, I mentioned "the New Zealand grey duck (A. s. superciliosa) subspecies of the Pacific black duck" instead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the fourth picture from the bottom should say "U.S." per MOS:NOTUSA.

Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Tang Dynasty spells it without an apostrophe.

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the Peking duck – mallards force-fed on grains, making them larger – was" – singular/plural issues.

Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That should be everything (I tried to be thorough). N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 10:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@N Oneemuss: I think the issues are resolved now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]